Exhibit 6 - Resolution No. 2018-024 — Corona City Council, September 7, 2022

RESOLUTION NO. 2018-024

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CORONA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ADDENDUM NOS. 1
AND 2 TO THE JULY 2016 INITIAL STUDY AND

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
PROPOSITION 1 - RECLAIMED WATER DISTRIBUTION
FACILITIES (SCH# 2016071005) AND MAKING

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTS AND FINDINGS IN SUPPORT

THEREOF PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, on September 7, 2016, the City Council of the City of Corona (“City”) approved Resolution No. 2016-091, adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) for the Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution Facilities (SCH # 2016071002) (“Project”), made findings of fact, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”); and WHEREAS, the Project consists of construction of two 2.14 million-gallon storage tanks and sixteen separate pipelines with a total length of approximately 74,300 lineal feet within the cities of Corona, Eastvale and Norco, to be implemented in five phases; and WHEREAS, Phase 1 of the Project consists of a 5,000-foot long, 16-inch diameter pipeline from the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority’s facilities at 14634 River Road in the City of Eastvale to its intersection with Bluff Street in the City of Norco; and WHEREAS, the City now proposes to modify Phase 1 of the Project to: (1) increase the diameter of the reclaimed water line from 16 inches to 20 inches (“Pipeline Diameter Increase”); and (2) install a portion of the reclaimed water pipeline (approximately 2,000 feet) within an easement granted to the City over federal land administered by the United States Department of the Army (“Federal Land Modification”); and
WHEREAS, the Pipeline Diameter Increase and the Federal Land Modification shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Project Modifications”; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and Addendum No. 1 for the Pipeline Diameter Increase in accordance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code section 21000 et seq.), together with the State Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.

Section 15000 et seq.) and local guidelines implementing said Act (collectively, “CEQA”); and WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference; and
2 WHEREAS, the City has prepared an Initial Study and Addendum No. 2 for the Federal Land Modification in accordance with the requirements of CEQA; and WHEREAS, Addendum No. 2 is attached hereto as Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, Addendum No. 1 and Addendum No. 2 shall be collectively referred to herein as the “Addendums”; and
WHEREAS, the Addendums incorporate, by reference, the analysis contained in the Initial Study and the analysis contained in the MND and related Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and addresses only those issues specific to the Project Modifications; and WHEREAS, the MMRP is attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by reference; and
WHEREAS, the Addendums conclude that the proposed Project Modifications will not cause new or substantially greater impacts than the impacts addressed in the MND. Similar to the issues identified in the MND, the significant effects associated with the Project Modifications that can be mitigated to less than significant levels include: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, and noise; and WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project Modifications; and WHEREAS, all the requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been satisfied by the City in the Addendums to the MND, which are sufficiently detailed so that all of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project Modifications have been adequately evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the Addendums prepared in connection with the Project Modifications sufficiently analyze the Mitigation Measures from the MMRP necessary to avoid or substantially lessen the potential environmental impacts of the Project Modifications; and WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Addendums, the MND, the MMRP and all prior CEQA documents, and all oral and written evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings, all of which is incorporated herein by this reference; and
3 WHEREAS, the Addendums reflect the independent judgment of the City Council and is deemed adequate for purposes of making decisions on the merits of the Project Modifications; and WHEREAS, on May 2, 2018, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public meeting on the Project Modifications, including this Resolution, at which time all persons wishing to testify were heard and the Project Modifications were fully considered; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Corona, California as follows:

SECTION 1. CEQA Findings. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the previously adopted MND for the Project, the Addendums for the Project Modifications, and all written and oral evidence received and presented concerning the Project Modifications. Based on the entire record before it and all written and oral evidence received and presented, the City Council has determined that the previously adopted MND for the Project and the Addendums for the Project Modifications constitute an adequate, accurate, objective, and complete review of the proposed Project Modifications and finds that no additional environmental review is required based on the reasons set forth below:

A. No substantial changes are proposed by the Project Modifications that will require major revisions of the previously adopted MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

B. No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project Modifications will be undertaken which will require major revisions to the previously adopted MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.

C. No new information of substantial importance has been found that shows any of the following:

1. The Project Modifications will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previously adopted MND;

2. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previously adopted MND;

3. Mitigation measures previously found to be infeasible would in fact be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project Modifications; or
4 4. Mitigation measures which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previously adopted MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment.

SECTION 2. Adoption of the Addendums to the MND. The City Council hereby approves and adopts Addendum Nos. 1 and 2 to the MND prepared for the Project Modifications.

SECTION 3. Adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The MMRP for the Project and attached hereto as Exhibit “C” and incorporated herein by reference is adopted for the Project Modifications, and the mitigation measures shall be implemented and monitored as set forth in the MMRP, based on the following findings of fact:

A. The MMRP has been adopted and implemented as part of the Project.

B. The Addendums to the MND do not include any new mitigation measures, and have not eliminated or modified any of the mitigation measures included in the MMRP for the Project;
C. The MMRP meets the requirements of CEQA section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines section 15074.

SECTION 4. Approval of the Project Modifications. Based on the entire record before the City Council of the City of Corona, all written and oral evidence presented, and the Addendums to the MND, the City Council of the City of Corona hereby approves the Project Modifications.

SECTION 5. Custodian of Records. The documents and materials that constitute the record of proceedings on which these findings are located at the City’s Corporation Yard Facility, located at 755 Public Safety Way, Corona, California. Tom Moody, General Manager, is the custodian of the record of proceedings.

SECTION 6. Notice of Determination. The City Council of the City of Corona hereby directs staff to file a Notice of Determination with the Riverside County Clerk and the Governor's Office of Planning and Research within five (5) working days of final Project approval.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption.
5 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 2
nd day of May, 2018.

Mayor of the City of Corona, California
ATTEST:
___________
Interim City Clerk of the City of Corona, California
6 CERTIFICATION
I, Patty Rodriguez, Interim City Clerk of the City of Corona, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of Corona, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 nd day of May, 2018, by
the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAINED:

IN WITNESS THEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Corona, California, this 2
nd day of May, 2018.
_____
Interim City Clerk of the City of Corona, California
(SEAL)
EXHIBIT “A”
ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO MND
(SEE ATTACHED SEVENTY-THREE (73) PAGES)
Prepared for:

Department of Water and Power
City of Corona
755 Public Safety Way
Corona, California 92880
Prepared by:

K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Engineering
45375 Vista Del Mar
Temecula, California 92590-4314
(951) 699-2082
Cell: (949) 412-2634
[email protected]
January 2017
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 i Environmental Engineering
Page
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description in the July 2016 IS&MND ........................................................................................ 1 Proposed Project Changes ..................................................................................................................... 8 Basis for Preparation of an Addendum ........................................................................................................ 8 Initial Study – Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form .............................................................. 12 New Significant Environmental Effects or Substantially More Severe Significant Environmental Effects Compared to those Identified in the Previous CEQA Document ............................................................... 15 Determination ............................................................................................................................................. 16 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................... 17 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 19 Agricultural and Forest Resources ....................................................................................................... 21 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 24 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................ 29 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 33 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................. 36 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................... 40 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................ 44 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................................... 49 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................................ 51 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 52 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................................ 55 Public Services ..................................................................................................................................... 57 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................. 60 Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................................................ 61 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 64 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................ 66 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................................................... 39 References ................................................................................................................................................. 71 Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 1 Environmental Engineering
The July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System (State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005) was approved by the City of Corona City Council on September 7, 2016. On September 12, 2016, the City of Corona filed a Notice of Determination with and the County of Riverside and on October 13, 2016, it filed a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse.

The following Project Description was contained in the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System.

The City of Corona Department of Water and Power (DWP) anticipates the implementation of its Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution Facilities (Project). The Project will include two 2.14 million-gallon storage tanks and sixteen separate pipelines with a total length of approximately 74,300 lineal feet. These facilities would be located within the Cities of Corona, Eastvale and Norco. Due to local funding constraints, DWP intends to implement the Project in phases as shown in Table 2.1-1.

Table 2.1-1
Proposition 1 – Recycled Water Distribution Facilities
Project Description Length (feet) Size Unit Cost Estimated Cost Phase 1
WRCRWA Line from Plant to Bluff Street 5,000 16 inches $500 $2,500,000 Phase 1 Subtotal $2,500,000
Phase 2
Old Temescal between Fullerton and I-15 4,600 8 inches $400 $1,800,000 Lincoln Avenue from Railroad to SR 91 2,500 8 inches $400 $1,000,000 River Road from Corydon to Lincoln 7,800 8 inches $400 $3,120,000 California Industrial Complex 4,300 8 inches $400 $1,720,000 Phase 2 Subtotal $7,640,000
Phase 3
Main Street Storage Tank 2.14 mg lump sum $6,000,000
Main Street Tank Fill Line 3,300 16 inches $500 $1,650,000 Corona Ranch Storage Tank 2.14 mg lump sum $6,000,000
Corona Ranch Tank Fill Line 14,000 16 inches $500 $7,000,000 Phase 3 Subtotal $20,650,000
Phase 4
Chase Park 1,400 8 inches $400 $560,000
Promenade Avenue from McKinley to SR 91 5,800 12 inches $450 $2,610,000 Tehachapi Park 1,500 6 inches $250 $375,000
Cresta Verde Park 1,700 6 inches $250 $425,000
Main and Ontario 5,500 8 inches $400 $2,200,000
Fullerton Avenue 9,100 8 inches $400 $3,640,000
Sierra - Bella to Serfas Club 2,500 12 inches $450 $1,125,000 Phase 4 Subtotals $10,935,000
Phase 5
Chase Drive – Foothill to 4 Kings 1,900 8 inches $400 $760,000 Mountain Gate Drive 3,400 8 inches $400 $1,360,000
Phase 5 Subtotals $2,120,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $43,845,000
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 2 Environmental Engineering
These facilities are briefly described in the following paragraphs.

As shown on Figure 2.1-1, the Phase 1 Facilities would include a 5,000- foot long, 16-inch diameter pipeline within the River Road easement from the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority’s facilities at 14634 River Road in the City of Eastvale to its intersection with Bluff Street in the City of Norco. At the Santa Ana River crossing, the pipeline would be installed within a dedicated space in the River Road Bridge.

The Phase 2 Facilities would include four separate reclaimed water pipelines: Old Temescal Road, Lincoln Avenue, River Road, and California Industrial Complex.

The Old Temescal Road Reclaimed Water Pipeline would consist of approximately 4,600 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipeline. As shown on Figure 2.1-2, the alignment would follow the Old Temescal Road right-ofway from just west of Interstate 15 to Fullerton Street.

Figure 1.1-2 Old Temescal Road
Figure 2.1-1 WRCRWA Line Plant to Bluff Street
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 3 Environmental Engineering
The Lincoln Avenue Reclaimed Water Pipeline would include approximately 2,500 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipeline. As shown on Figure 2.1-3, the pipeline would follow the Lincoln Avenue right-of-way between the eastbound onramp to Highway 91 and Railroad Street.

The River Road Recycled Water Pipeline would include approximately 7,800 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipeline. As shown on Figure 2.1-4, the alignment would follow the River Road right-of-way between Corydon StreCaet and Lincoln Avenue. This pipeline would also include a short stub to serve the Fairview Park and another southerly along Lincoln Avenue.

The California Industrial Complex Reclaimed Water Pipeline would include approximately 4,300 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipeline.

As shown on Figure 2.1-5, the alignment would follow California Street from Old Temescal Road to Rimpau Street.

Figure 2.1-4 River Road
Figure 2.1-3 Lincoln Avenue
Figure 2.1-5 California Industrial Complex
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 4 Environmental Engineering
The Phase 3 Facilities would include the two 2.14 million-gallon storage tanks and their associated fill lines. As shown on Figure 2.1-6 the South Main Reclaimed Water Reservoir would be constructed on a parcel near the intersection of South Main Street and Cleveland. The 16-inch diameter fill line would extend along the South Main Street right-of-way from Upper Street to the tank site, a distance of approximately 3,300 lineal feet. The reinforced concrete tank would be buried. It would be 110 feet in diameter and 30 feet in depth.

The Corona Ranch Reclaimed Water Reservoir would be located within the City of Norco adjacent to Valley Drive north of its intersection Friesian Street. The 2.14 million-gallon reinforced concrete tank would be above ground. It would be 110 feet in diameter and 30 feet in height.

As shown on Figure 2.1-7, the 16-inch diameter fill line would extend a distance of approximately 14,000 lineal feet. The alignment would extend southerly from the tank site along the Valley Drive right-of-way to its intersection with Norco Hills Drive. It would then follow Norco Hills Road to its intersection with Hidden Valley Parkway thence along Hidden Valley Parkway to its intersection with Village Loop Drive. It would then follow Village Loop Drive to its intersection with East Parkridge Avenue. It would then follow East Parkridge Avenue to just south of its intersection with Wrightwood Road.

The Phase 4 Facilities would include seven separate reclaimed water pipelines: Chase Park, Promenade Avenue, Tehachapi Park, Cresta Verde Park, Main and Ontario, Fullerton Avenue, and Sierra Bella.

Figure 2.1-6 South Main Reclaimed Water Reservoir
Figure 2.1-7 Corona Ranch Reclaimed Water Tank
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 5 Environmental Engineering
As shown on Figure 2.1-8, the 8-inch diameter Chase Park Reclaimed Water Pipeline would extend a total distance of 1,400 lineal feet. The alignment would extend north along California Street to its intersection with Chase Road and thence along Chase Road in a northwesterly direction to Chase Park.

As shown on Figure 2.1-9, the 12-inch diameter Promenade Reclaimed Water Pipeline would extend a total of approximately 5,800 lineal feet.

The alignment would follow Promenade Avenue from its intersection with McKinley Avenue to approximately State Route 91.

Figure 2.1-9 Promenade Avenue
Figure 2.1-8 Chase Park
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 6 Environmental Engineering
As shown on Figure 2.1-10, the 6-inch diameter Tehachapi Park Reclaimed Water Line would extend a total of 1,500 lineal feet. The alignment would follow Saddleback from its intersection with McKinley to its intersection with Saint Helena and thence along Saint Helena to Tehachapi Park.

As shown on Figure 2.1-11, the 6-inch diameter Cresta Verde Park Reclaimed Water Pipeline would extend a total distance of approximately 1,700 lineal feet between Promenade Avenue and Cresta Verde Park.

The alignment would follow the right-of-way of Avondale northerly from Promenade to its intersection with Stonehaven. It would then follow Stonehaven a sort distance to an open space area. It would follow along the open space area to Collette Avenue and thence along Collette Avenue a short distance to the park.

As shown on Figure 2.1-12, the 8-inch diameter Main and Ontario Reclaimed Water Line extends a total distance of about 5,500 lineal feet.

The alignment follows South Main Street in a northerly direction from its intersection with Citrus Avenue to its intersection with East Ontario Avenue. It then follows East Ontario Avenue in a westerly direction to its intersection with Taylor Avenue. It then follows Taylor Avenue northerly to the Vicentia Elementary School.
\
Figure 2.1-12 Main and Ontario
Figure 2.1-11 Cresta Verde Park
Figure 2.1-10 Tehachapi Park
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 7 Environmental Engineering
As shown on Figure 2.1-13, the 8-inch diameter Fullerton Avenue Reclaimed Water Pipeline would extend a total distance of about 9,100 lineal feet. It would follow Fullerton Avenue in a northerly direction from Centenial High School to its intersection with East Grand Avenue. It would then follow East Grand Avenue in a northerly direction to the City Park. A short section would also be installed in the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way at its intersection with Fullerton Avenue.

As shown on Figure 2.1-14, the 12-inch diameter Sierra Bella to Serfas Club Reclaimed Water Pipeline would follow the alignment of Green River Road from its intersection with Tanglewood Drive to Serfas Club Drive. This pipeline would be approximately 2,500 feet in length.

Figure 2.1-13 Fullerton Avenue
Figure 2.1-14 Sierra Bella to Serfas Club
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 8 Environmental Engineering
The Phase 5 Facilities would include two 8-inch diameter reclaimed water pipelines: Chase Drive – Foothill to 4 Kings and Mountain Gate Drive. As shown on Figure 2.1-15, the Chase Drive Reclaimed Water Pipeline alignment would follow Elysia from about its intersection with Overland to its intersection with 4 Kings. It would then follow 4 Kings to its intersection with Chase Drive. This pipeline would be approximately 1,900 feet in length.

As shown on Figure 2.1-16, the Mountain Gate Reclaimed Water Pipeline alignment would follow a future street easement to Sierra Lane and thence northerly on Sierra Lane to its intersection with Harley Lane, easterly on Harley Lane to its intersection with Mountain Gate Drive and thence northern on Mountain Gate Drive to its intersection with Lincoln Avenue and Upper Drive. The total length of this pipeline would be approximately 3,400 lineal feet.

The proposed changes to the project include the upsizing of the WRCRWA Recycled Water Pipeline (Phase 1 Project) from 16-inch diameter to 20-inch diameter. No other changes in the Project are anticipated at this time; therefore, this Addendum focuses on the Phase 1 Project.

The California Supreme Court stated “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable Figure 2.1-15 Chase Drive
Figure 2.1-16 Mountain Gate Drive
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 9 Environmental Engineering
scope of the statutory language.” [Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988)].

CEQA achieves this goal by disclosing the potentially significant environmental effects of “projects”. §15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a “project” as follows:
a) “Project” means the whole of an action, which had a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and that is any of the following:
1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to public works construction and related activities, clearing or grading of land, improvements to existing public structures, enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof pursuant to Government Code Sections 65100-65700. 2) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. 3) An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
b) Project does not include:
1) Proposals for legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature. 2) Continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies, personnel-related actions, general policy and procedure making (except as they are applied to specific instances covered above).
3) The submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community that does not involve a public agency sponsored initiative [Stein v. City of Santa Monica (1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 458; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 165]. 4) The creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
5) Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
c) The term “project” refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term “project” does not mean each separate governmental approval.
d) Where the Lead Agency could describe the project as either the adoption of a particular regulation under subdivision (a)(1) or as a development proposal which will be subject to several governmental approvals Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 10 Environmental Engineering
under subdivisions (a)(2) or (a)(3), the Lead Agency shall describe the project as a development proposal for the purpose of the environmental analysis. This approach will implement the Lead Agency principle as described in Article 4.
§15164(b) of the 2016 State CEQA Guidelines states that the Lead Agency may prepare an addendum to a previously adopted negative declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in §15162 calling for a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. §15162 of the 2016 State CEQA Guidelines states:

A. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

A. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR or negative declaration;
B. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR;
C. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative; or D. Mitigation measures or alternatives which are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or alternative.

Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 11 Environmental Engineering
E. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.

F. Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.

The City of Corona has reviewed the proposed project changes in light of the requirements defined under the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, the City has assessed the proposed project changes in the following Initial Study using the Supplemental Environmental Checklist form developed by Albert A. Webb Associates in Addendum No. 1 to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement Riverside-Corona Feeder Project for the Realignment of Reach G, Realignment of a Portion of Reach F, and the Change in Equipment for the Sterling Pump Station prepared for Western Municipal Water District and modified by K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 12 Environmental Engineering

FOR USE WHEN THE CITY OF CORONA IS REVIEWING SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS

PURUSANT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OR ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

1. Project Title: Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System, Phase 1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

Department of Water and Power
City of Corona
755 Public Safety Way
Corona, California 92880

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Keith S. Dunbar, P.E., BCEE, Hon.D.WRE., F. ASCE
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.
45375 Vista Del Mar
Temecula, California 92590-4314
(951) 699-2082
Cell: (949) 412-2634
Email: [email protected]

4. Project Location:

Within public street rights-of-way beginning at the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Reclamation Plant in the City of Eastvale to the intersection of River Road and Bluff Street in the City of Norco., Riverside County Section 10, Township 3 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian 33°35’24” N, -117°35’51” W (River Road Bridge).

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Department of Water and Power
City of Corona
755 Public Safety Way
Corona, California 92880

6. General Plan Designation: N/A.

7. Zoning: N/A.

January 2017 P a g e | 13 Environmental Engineering

9. Previous Environmental Document: (Please describe the previously adopted ND or MND or the previously certified EIR including the date the document was adopted or certified, the date the project was approved by the City of Corona, the date the NOD was filed with the County of Riverside, and a summary of potentially significant effects identified in the CEQA document.) The July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluated the environmental effects of the proposed Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System. That document was approved by City of Corona’s City Council on September 7, 2007. The City filed a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside on September 12, 2016 and with the State Clearinghouse on October 213, 2016. All potential impacts identified in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration can be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that was also adopted by City Council on September 7, 2016.

10. Description of the Project: (Describe the previously approved Project and the authorized entitlements/discretionary actions. Describe whether the subsequent discretionary action now proposed was considered in the previously approved CEQA document and describe any differences between the proposed action and the approved project.)
The Project analyzed in the July 2016 IS&MND was described in the Project Described in 2016 IS&MND section beginning on page 1 in this document.

During final design, the City of Corona’s Department of Water and Power upsized the WRCRWA Recycled Water Pipeline (Phase 1 Project) from 16-inch diameter to 20-inch diameter.

This change was not foreseen at the time of preparation of the July 2016 IS&MND and would have no effect on the discretionary approval process.

12. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings.) The proposed WRCRWA Recycled Water Line would be located within public street rights-of-way between the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in the City of Eastvale and the intersection of River Road and Bluff Street in the City of Norco. The surrounding land uses include public service (treatment plant site), residential and open space.

13. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
 Easement
 California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region  General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities.  General Permit for Construction Dewatering
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 14 Environmental Engineering
 City of Eastvale
 Encroachment Permit
 City of Norco
 Encroachment Permit
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 15 Environmental Engineering
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages:

Aesthetics Agricultural/Forest Resources Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 16 Environmental Engineering
(To be completed by the Lead Agency):

On the basis on this initial evaluation:

I find that no substantial changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that is used in the State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or previously certified EIR adequately addresses the potential impacts of the project without modification.

X
I find that no significant changes are proposed in the project and there are no substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Also, there is no “new information of substantial importance” as that term is used in the State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3). Therefore, the previously adopted ND or MND or certified EIR adequately discusses the potential impacts of the project; however, minor changes require the preparation of an ADDENDUM.

I find that substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous approved ND or MND or certified EIR due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new information of substantial importance”, as that term is used in the State CEQA Guidelines §15162(2)(3). However, all new potentially significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects are clearly reduced to below a level of significance through the incorporation of mitigation measures agreed to by the project applicant. Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT MND is required.

I find that substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new information of substantial importance”, as that term is used in the State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previously certified EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.

I find that substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new information of substantial importance”, as that term is used in the State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3). Therefore, a SUBSEQUENT EIR is required. _________________________________________ ____________________________________ Jonathan Daly, General Manager Date
Department of Water and Power
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 17 Environmental Engineering
1) A finding of “No New Impact/No Impact” means that the potential impact was fully analyzed and/or mitigated in the prior CEQA document and no new or different impacts will result from the proposed activity. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No New Impact/No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A “No New Impact/No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No New Impact/No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) A finding of “New Mitigation is Required” means that the project may have a potentially significant impact on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously approved ND or MND or certified EIR and that new mitigation is required to address the impact.
3) A finding of “New Potentially Significant Impact” means that the project may have a new potentially significant impact on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously approved ND or MND or certified EIR that cannot be mitigated to a below a level of significance or be avoided. 4) A finding of “Reduced Impact” means that a previously infeasible mitigation measure is now available, or a previously infeasible alternative is now available that will reduce a significant impact identified in the previously prepared environmental document.
5) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as projectlevel, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 6) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. §15163(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the following checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the proposed action. c) Infeasible Mitigation Measures. Discuss any mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would in fact now be feasible or that are considerably different from those previously analyzed and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

January 2017 P a g e | 18 Environmental Engineering
d) Changes in Circumstances. Discuss any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or “new information of substantial importance” that cause a change in conclusion regarding one or more effects discussed in the original document.
7) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 8) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
9) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 10) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; b) the difference between the proposed activity and the previously approved project described in the approved ND or MND or certified EIR; and
c) the previously approved mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 11) Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

January 2017 P a g e | 19 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X
Aesthetics. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND p. 3-13)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2167 IS&MND concluded all facilities would be constructed underground and therefore no impacts to scenic vistas are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Aesthetics. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-14)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that alll pipeline work would be conducted within public street rights-of-way. Once the underground pipelines were installed, they would not be visible and therefore not impact any views.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Aesthetics. c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

January 2017 P a g e | 20 Environmental Engineering
Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-14.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that Installation of the underground facilities would not degrade the visual character or quality of the sites and their surroundings. Consequently, no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Aesthetics. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-14)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the underground facilities would not require the installation of security lighting. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 21 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Would the Project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? X
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section
12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 511104(g))?
X
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest uses. X
e. Involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
Agricultural and Forest Resources. a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Propose Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Agricultural and Forest Resources. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

January 2017 P a g e | 22 Environmental Engineering
Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-17)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the pipelines would be installed within public street rights-of-way which are not applicable to zoning. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Consequently, there are no impacts anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Agricultural and Forest Resources. c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-17)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) as there are none in the Project area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)) as there are none in the Project area. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Agricultural and Forest Resources. d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-17)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as there are no forest lands within the Project sites. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as there are no forest lands within the Project area. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 23 Environmental Engineering
Agricultural and Forest Resources. e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-17 and 3-18).

July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that Implementation of the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: There are no farmlands or forest lands within the project area. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 24 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

Would the Project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? X
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X
c. Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
X
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X
f. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment, based on any applicable threshold of
significance?
X
g. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
X
Air Quality. a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact
Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-21 and 3-22).

July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that a project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it would result in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates included in applicable air quality management plans [i.e., SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)]. The AQMP is based on general plans from local jurisdictions, which includes the City of Corona’s General Plan. The AQMP accounts for development that would occur as a result of implementation of the local general plans. The purpose of the Project is to:
 Decrease the amount of recycled water that cannot be beneficially used within the service area of the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority (WRCRWA) of which the City of Corona is a member agency.  Increase the amount of recycled water that can be beneficially used thereby decreasing the amount of potable water that is currently being used for non-potable uses.
 Decrease the amount of imports from the State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct.

January 2017 P a g e | 25 Environmental Engineering
 Improve the reliability of landscape irrigation water supplies.

It would not accommodate growth and therefore is consistent with the AQMP. Consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Air Quality. b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp 3-22 through 3-24) July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion - Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the total estimated daily emissions from the construction of WRCRWA Reclaimed Water Pipeline Project are shown in Table 3.7-

5. Table 3.7-5
Total Estimated Construction Emissionsa
Source Pollutant (pounds per day)
ROG CO NOx SOx PM10 PM2.5 CO2 CH4
Construction Equipment 1.54 15.90 17.42 0.02 0.16 0.14 2,318 0.66 On-Road Vehicles 0.09 0.41 2.65 0.01 0.05 0.03 930 0.02 Worker Commutes 0.02 0.29 0.07 0.01 0.04 0.02 543 0.03
Fugitive Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00
Total 1.65 16.6 20.14 0.04 0.35 0.21 3,791 0.71
Threshold Limitsb 75 550 100 150 150 55 N/A N/A
Localized Thresholdsc N/A 887 148 N/A 12 4 N/A N/A
a Use of particulate traps reduces PM10 and PM2.5 by 85% and oxidation catalysts reduces NOx by 15%. b Construction-related threshold limits developed by SCAQMD to determine significance. c Localized significant thresholds developed by SCAQMD to determine localized significance, based on a work area of up to 1 acre and a 50-meter distance to the nearest receptor.

As shown in Table 3.7-5, the total estimated emissions from construction of the WRCRWA Reclaimed Water Pipeline would not exceed the construction-related threshold limits for significance or the localized thresholds.

However, the ARB has designated the SCAB as non-attainment for the State ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 standards. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated the SCAB as non-attainment for the federal ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Therefore, every effort should be made to minimize emissions within the SCAB. Consequently, to reduce the emissions as much as possible, DWP will:
 Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activities including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
 In addition, DWP will add the following best management practices in its contract documents for this project:

The contractor shall:

January 2017 P a g e | 26 Environmental Engineering
 Utilize electricity from power poles instead of from temporary diesel or gasoline power generators, when feasible.
 Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the contractor shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements.  Require that all on-site construction equipment meet EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards according to the following:
 All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations.  A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment.  Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturer’s specifications.
 Use alternative fuels or clean and low-sulfur fuel for equipment.  Idle trucks in accordance with the Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ACTM) to Limit Diesel Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling and other applicable laws.  Spread soil binders on site, where appropriate, unpaved roads and staging areas.  Water site and equipment as necessary to control dust.  Sweep all streets at least once per day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets.  Conduct operations in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements.  If necessary, wash off trucks leaving the site.
 Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Air Quality. c. Would the project result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-32)
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 27 Environmental Engineering
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the California Air Resources Board has designated the South Coast Air Basin as non-attainment for the State ozone standard, the State PM10 standard and the State PM2.5 standard. In addition, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has designated the South Coast Air Basin as nonattainment for the federal ozone standard, the federal carbon monoxide standard, and the federal PM10 standard. The proposed project would generate emissions during the construction phase; however, as shown above, these emissions are considered less than significant by the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s threshold criteria. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Air Quality. d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-32)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that sensitive receptors include hospitals, schools, day care facilities, and convalescent facilities. Some of these occur near the pipeline project sites. However, as shown previously, construction emissions from the implementation of the Project are considered less than significant by SCAQMD’s threshold criteria for significance. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Air Quality. e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-32)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that neither construction nor operation of the project should create or cause objectionable odors. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The minor changes proposed in the project would not change the conclusions of the July 2016 IS&MND with respect to odors. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Air Quality. f. Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment, based on any applicable threshold of significance?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p 3-32))
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 28 Environmental Engineering
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that SCAQMD has suggested significance levels of 10,000 MT per year CO2 equivalents for industrial projects. Based on the information presented above, the total annual CO2 emissions from construction of the all phases of the Proposition 1- Reclaimed Water Distribution System would be much less than the significance levels. Therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions from construction would be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed project changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The minor changes proposed in the project would not change the conclusions of the July 2016 IS&MND with respect to greenhouse gases. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Air Quality. g. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-33)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emission of greenhouse gases.

Therefore, no mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 29 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
Biological Resources. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-40 and 3-41).

July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that a query of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator found that the proposed project sites are located within the designated survey area for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Based on habitat requirements, the availability and quality of those habitats on-site, it was determined that the burrowing owl is presumed absent due to lack of suitable habitat and existing development/disturbance.

However, in order to comply with the conservation goals of the MSCHP and to ensure burrowing owl and nesting birds remain absent from the Project sites, DWP shall implement the following:

January 2017 P a g e | 30 Environmental Engineering
 A burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities in accordance with the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two pre-construction clearance surveys shall be conducted 14- 30 days and 24 hours prior to ground disturbing activities to document the continued absence of burrowing owl from the Project site.
 If ground-disturbing activities or removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat are scheduled within the avian nesting season (nesting season generally extends from February 1 - August 31), a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within 10 days prior to any ground disturbing activities. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active bird nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the 10-day preconstruction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptor species, this buffer is expanded to 500 feet. It is recommended that a biological monitor be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity.

Once the young have fledged, normal construction activities can occur.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No. The minor changes proposed in the project would not change the conclusions of the July 2016 IS&MND with respect to special-status species. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Biological Resources. b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis p. 10) July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSCHP Consistency Analysis concluded that nased on the proposed design plans and the limits of disturbance from Project activities, and with the implementation of a preconstruction nesting bird clearance survey, none of the special-status species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site will be directly or indirectly impacted from implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, this Project will have “no effect” on federally, State, or MSHCP listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, the Project will have “no effect” on designated Critical Habitats.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Biological Resources. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact
Response: (Source: May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis p. 10) May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Conclusion – No Impact: The May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSCHP Consistency Analysis concluded that based on the proposed design plans and the limits of disturbance from Project activities, and with the implementation of a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey, none of the special-status species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site will be directly or indirectly impacted from implementation of the Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 31 Environmental Engineering
proposed Project. Therefore, this Project will have “no effect” on federally, State, or MSHCP listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, the Project will have “no effect” on designated Critical Habitats.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Biological Resources. d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis p. 10) May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Conclusion – No Impact: The May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSCHP Consistency Analysis concluded that based on the proposed design plans and the limits of disturbance from Project activities, and with the implementation of a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey, none of the special-status species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site will be directly or indirectly impacted from implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, this Project will have “no effect” on federally, State, or MSHCP listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, the Project will have “no effect” on designated Critical Habitats.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Biological Resources. e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 32 Environmental Engineering
Biological Resources. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND. .

January 2017 P a g e | 33 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource as defined in §15064.5? X
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? X
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
e. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either:

X
1) A site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is
geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k), or
X
2) a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
according to the historical register criteria in Public Resources Code §5023.1(c), and considering the
significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

X
Cultural Resources. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: April 2016 Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum, pp. 3 & 4) April 2016 Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum Conclusion – No Impact: The April 2016 Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum concluded Several previous studies have investigated portions of the APE and adjacent areas (RI-00061, RI-01697, RI-01954, RI-04331, RI-05964, RI-07500). These studies have provided coverage for the entire APE. The results of the EIC records search conducted for this study failed to identify any previously recorded cultural resource within the project APE. Two previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within 0.5-mile of the APE. These resources are located outside of the APE and will not be impacted by the current project.

Based on the level of disturbance of the APE from previous infrastructure development (e.g., roads, pipelines), it is unlikely that any previously unidentified cultural resources will be affected or impacted by the current project. Therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources under CEQA and no historic properties affected under the NHPA. To maintain these findings, the following mitigation measures are recommended for the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and/ or human remains are discussed below. [Note: The recommended mitigation measures were included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project.]
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 34 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Cultural Resources. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource as defined in §15064.5? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Based on the level of disturbance of the APE from previous infrastructure development (e.g., roads, pipelines), it is unlikely that any previously unidentified cultural resources will be affected or impacted by the current project. Therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources under CEQA and no historic properties affected under the NHPA. To maintain these findings, the following mitigation measures are recommended for the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and/ or human remains are discussed below. [Note: The recommended mitigation measures were included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project.]
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Cultural Resources. c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-52 & 3-53.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that It is possible that paleontological resources could be unearthed during excavation activities. Therefore, the DWP will adhere to the following:

Mitigation Measures:
 Should construction/development activities uncover paleontological resources, work will be moved to other parts of the Project site and a qualified paleontologist shall determine the significance of these resources. If the find is determined to be significant, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented. Appropriate measures would include that a qualified paleontologist be permitted to recover and evaluate the find(s) in accordance with current standards and guidelines.

January 2017 P a g e | 35 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Cultural Resources. d. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Based on the level of disturbance of the APE from previous infrastructure development (e.g., roads, pipelines), it is unlikely that any previously unidentified cultural resources will be affected or impacted by the current project. Therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources under CEQA and no historic properties affected under the NHPA. To maintain these findings, the following mitigation measures are recommended for the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and/ or human remains are discussed below. [Note: The recommended mitigation measures were included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project.]
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 36 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X

3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X

4. Landslides? X
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
X
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
X
e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
X
Geology and Soils. a. 1. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND p. 3-55.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act identifies special study zones for areas where existing known faults are located. The main purpose of the Act is to prevent the construction of buildings used for human occupancy on the surface trace of active faults. The Act also required the State Geologist to establish regulatory zones (known as Earthquake Fault Zones) around the surface traces of active faults and to issue appropriate maps.

Based on the State of California’s Earthquake Fault Zones Corona North and South Quadrangle Official Maps Effective May 1, 2003, the two tank sites are not within a fault zone; however, the South Main Reclaimed Water Tank site is within one-half mile of the Elsinore Fault Zone. Therefore, this site could be subject to strong ground shaking should an earthquake occur on this Fault Zone. The design of this tank is in accordance with Uniform Building Code and the geotechnical studies completed for this site.

Therefore, no further analysis or mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 37 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Geology and Soils. a. 2. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND p. 3-57.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the potential for strong seismic ground shaking in the Project area is similar to that in surrounding areas. Because the Project consists of facilities that are not intended for human habitation, the Project will not expose people or critical structures to adverse effects resulting from seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction. In addition, the Project facilities are specifically designed to withstand seismic conditions anticipated to occur at the Project sites. Seismic conditions expected to occur in the Project area (see Seismicity discussion in Section 3.10.1) can be mitigated by special design using reasonable construction and/or maintenance practices common to the Riverside County area. Therefore, the seismic-related impacts related to strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant and no further mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: : The existing conditions described above still apply. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Geology and Soils. a. 3. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-58.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project facilities are specifically designed to withstand seismic conditions anticipated to occur in the Project area. Seismic conditions expected to occur in the Project area (see Seismicity discussion in Section 3.10.1) can be mitigated by special design using reasonable construction and/or maintenance practices common to the Riverside County area. Therefore, the seismic-related impacts related to ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than significant and no further mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: As stated above, seismic conditions anticipated at the site can be mitigated by special design using reasonable construction and/or maintenance practices common to the Riverside County area. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Geology and Soils. a. 4. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p.3-58.)
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 38 Environmental Engineering
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded the Project sites are located on relatively flat topography and are not subject to landslides. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would impact landslides nor does the Project have the potential to create or generate landslides. Therefore, no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Geology and Soils. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-58.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that installation of the proposed facilities would require grading which would result in the potential for wind and water erosion. However, compliance with the mitigation measures included in the air quality section to control fugitive dust would also control the potential for soil erosion or the loss of top soil (See Air Quality. b.). These include:
 Spread soil binders on site, where appropriate, unpaved roads and staging areas.  Water site and equipment as necessary to control dust.  Conduct operations in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Any construction activity would have to comply with the provisions of the above mitigation measures. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Geology and Soils. c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-58.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the proposed Project facilities are located in areas mapped as being susceptible to subsidence and liquefaction. However, the Project facilities would be specifically designed to withstand geologic conditions anticipated to occur in the Project area. Geologic conditions expected to occur in the Project area can be mitigated by special design using reasonable construction and/or maintenance practices common to the Riverside County area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 39 Environmental Engineering
Geology and Soils. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-59.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project sites are not located on expansive soil as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code. According to the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, soils at the sites consist of gravelly or rocky loams and are not reported to be significantly expansive. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Geology and Soils. e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p.3-59.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project does not include the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, there are no impacts associated with the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 40 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably upset accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e. Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and if so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X
f. Be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and if so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-63.)
July 2016 IS&MND – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that construction of the individual project facilities would not create any significant hazards as a result of the routine transport, use, storage, or disposal of hazardous materials. However, construction would include the temporary use and transport of fuels, lubricating fluids, solvents and other hazardous materials. The contractor(s) would be required to adhere to the requirements of a Health and Safety Plan that it would develop for the Project pursuant to Chapter 6.95, Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code (§§ 25500—25532).

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level:

January 2017 P a g e | 41 Environmental Engineering
Mitigation Measures:

To reduce potentially hazardous conditions and minimize the impacts from the handling of potentially hazardous materials, DWP shall include the following in its construction contract documents:
 The contractor(s) shall prepare a Health and Safety Plan in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 6.95, Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code (§§ 25500—25532). The plan shall include measures to be taken in the event of an accidental spill.
 The contractor(s) shall enforce strict on-site handling rules to keep construction and maintenance materials out of receiving waters and storm drains. In addition, the contractor(s) shall store all reserve fuel supplies only within the confines of designated construction staging areas, refuel equipment only within the designated construction staging areas, and regularly inspect all construction equipment for leaks.  The construction staging area shall be designed to contain contaminants such as oil, grease, and fuel products so that they do not drain towards receiving waters or storm drain inlets.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Adherence to the above mitigation measures would insure that the impacts were reduced to a less than significant level. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. b. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably upset accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-64.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that construction equipment used to construct the project would have the potential to release oils, grease, solvents and other finishing products through accidental spills. However, adherence to the above mitigation measures would result in less-than-significant impacts. Therefore, no further analysis or further mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Adherence to the above mitigation measure would insure that the impacts were reduced to a less than significant level. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Answer: No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-64.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that there are several schools within one-quarter mile of the individual project sites. However, adherence to the above mitigation measures would ensure that the handling of hazardous materials did not escape the construction site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 42 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the WRCRWA Recycled Water Pipeline. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. d. Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-64 and 3-65.) July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that several standard environmental record services are available to determine the potential for recognized environmental conditions in an area. Those databases include:
 National Priorities List (NPL)
 Envirostor
 Geotracker
 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
 Hazardous Materials Response Plans and Inventory
 Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUSTIS)  Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CalSites)  Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese)
 Solid Waste Information System (SWIS)
These databases were searched for the presence of hazardous materials sites within the Project area. According to those databases, there are six active cleanup sites in the Project area. All work would be conducted on public street rights-of-way or at the proposed tank sites which are far removed from the cleanup sites; therefore, these sites should not affect the work areas.

Consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply In addition, none of those sites were in the vicinity of the WRCRWA Recycled Water Pipeline. For these reasons, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and if so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND p. 3-65.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that none of the Project facilities would be within an airport land use plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 43 Environmental Engineering
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. f. Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and if so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-65.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-65.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials. h. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-65.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project area is not subject to wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 44 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
X
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
X
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? X
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? X
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j. Be Inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Hydrology and Water Quality. a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-67 and 3-68.) July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that during site grading and excavation activities associated with the construction of the Project facilities, bare soil would be exposed to wind and water erosion. If precautions are not taken to contain sediments, construction activities could produce sediment laden storm runoff. In addition to increased erosion potential, hazardous materials associated with construction equipment could Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 45 Environmental Engineering
adversely affect water quality if spilled or stored improperly. (See Section 3.11 for a full discussion and mitigation measures associated with hazardous materials.) The following mitigation measures would reduce these potential impacts to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

DWP shall require contractors to implement a program of best management practices (BMP’s) and best available technologies to reduce potential impacts to water quality that may result from construction activities. To reduce or eliminate construction-related water quality impacts before the onset of construction activities, DWP would obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permits. Construction activities would comply with the conditions of these permits that include preparation of storm water pollution prevention plans, implementation of BMP’s, and monitoring to insure impacts to water quality are minimized. As part of this process, multiple BMP’s should be implemented to provide effective erosion and sediment control. These BMP’s should be selected to achieve maximum sediment removal and represent the best available technology that is economically achievable. BMP’s to be implemented as part of this mitigation measure may include, but not be limited to, the following:
 Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other groundcover shall be employed for disturbed areas.
 Storm drain inlets on the site and in downstream offsite areas shall be protected from sediment with the use of BMP’s acceptable to DWP, local jurisdictions and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region.  Dirt and debris shall be swept from paved streets in the construction zone on a regular basis, particularly before predicted rainfall events.
 No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in place between October 15 and April 15. DWP shall file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Board and require the preparation of a pollution prevention plan prior to commencement of construction. DWP shall routinely inspect the construction site to verify that the BMP’s specified in the pollution prevention plan are properly installed and maintained. DWP shall immediately notify the contractor if there were a noncompliance issue and require immediate compliance.

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would insure that the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Continued adherence to the above mitigation measures would insure that the impacts are reduced to a less than significant level. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hydrology and Water Quality. b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-68.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project includes reclaimed water distribution facilities that would not utilize groundwater. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 46 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hydrology and Water Quality. c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-68.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that construction of the underground pipelines would not change the drainage patterns on the sites and result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite. Construction of the two reclaimed water storage tanks would change the drainage pattern at each site; however, it would be considered minor. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hydrology and Water Quality. d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-68.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that construction of the Project facilities would not substantially change the drainage patterns on the sites and result in substantial flooding on- or off-site. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hydrology and Water Quality. e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Answer: No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-68.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project does not include features that would create or contribute substantial sources of runoff or polluted runoff which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 47 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hydrology and Water Quality. f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-69.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project would not substantially degrade water quality. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hydrology and Water Quality. g. Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-69.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the proposed Project does not include housing. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hydrology and Water Quality. h. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact..

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-69.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project would not include the placement of structures within a floodplain that would impede or redirect flood flows. Consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hydrology and Water Quality. i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Answer: No Impact.

January 2017 P a g e | 48 Environmental Engineering
Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-69.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project does not include the construction of levees or dams. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analyses or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Hydrology and Water Quality. j. Would the project be inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Answer: No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-69.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that there are no water bodies that would produce seiches, tsunamis, or mud flows. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 49 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established community? X
b. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
X
c. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X
Land Use and Planning. a. Would the project physically divide an established community? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-70.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the pipelines would all be underground. Therefore, the Project would not physically divide an established community. Consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Land Use and Planning. b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-70.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the pipelines would be underground within public rights-of-way which are not subject to land use policies. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 50 Environmental Engineering
Land Use and Planning. c. Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-71)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project is consistent with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 51 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a known resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? X b. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
Mineral Resources. a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-72.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that there are no known mineral resources in the Project area that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Mineral Resources. b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-72.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded there are no locally-important mineral resource recovery sites delineated on the applicable local general plans, specific plan or other land use plan in the Project area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 52 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b. Expose persons to or generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? X
c. Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project? X
d. Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
X
e. Be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and if so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
f. Be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and if so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
X
Noise. a. Would the project expose persons to or generate noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p 3-74.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that Project facilities would be exempt from the provisions of the local ordinances; therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Noise. b. Would the project expose persons to or generate excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-74.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that construction activities could result in some minor amount of ground vibration. Vibration from construction activity is typically below the threshold of perception when the activity is more than 50 feet from receivers. There are no receivers within 50 feet of the proposed facilities; therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 53 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Noise. c. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-74.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the proposed project would not result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project. Consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Noise. d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-75 and 3-76.) July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that noise associated with construction could be locally significant during the construction period. However, the exact degree of impact on the surrounding community would depend on the type of equipment being used at any one time, the distance from the equipment, and the hours of operation. It is anticipated that noise levels associated with construction would range from 72 to 84 dB(A) within 50 feet of the equipment being used. These noise levels would be further attenuated by the distance to the nearest receptor. To further ensure that construction activities do not affect adjoining property owners, DWP will add the following best management practices in its standard construction specifications:
 All equipment used during construction shall be muffled and maintained in good operating condition. All internal combustion engines shall be fitted with well-maintained mufflers in accordance with manufacturers’ recommendations.

Incorporation of the best management practices shown above would ensure that any potential impacts are reduced to a level that is less than significant and no further environmental review or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Noise. e. Would the project be located within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and if so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-76.)
Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

January 2017 P a g e | 54 Environmental Engineering
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that none of the Project sites are located within an airport land use plan. Also as stated above, the Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Noise. f. Would the project be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and if so, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-75.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that none of the Project sites are within the immediate vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 55 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
X
c. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X
Population and Housing. a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-77.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that installation of the reclaimed water distribution facilities would have no effect on population or housing. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Population and Housing. b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-77)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not displace existing housing because the tanks would be constructed on vacant parcels and the pipelines within public rights-of-way.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 56 Environmental Engineering
Population and Housing. c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-77.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not displace substantial numbers of existing housing and therefore would not displace substantial numbers of people. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 57 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/ No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

1. Fire Protection? X

2. Police Protection? X

3. Schools? X

4. Parks? X

5. Other Public Facilities? X
Public Services. a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire protection services? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-79.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in the need for additional fire protection services because the Project involves a negligible expansion of operations for which fire protection services would be required. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Public Services. a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for police protection services? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-80.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in the need for additional police protection services because the Project involves a negligible expansion of operations for which police services would be required. Additional police protection services (e.g., equipment, sworn officers) would not be required. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 58 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Public Services. a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for schools? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-80.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in a need for additional schools because the Project does not include the development of residential uses for which school services would be required. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Public Services. a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for parks? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-80.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in a need for additional park facilities because the Project does not include the development of uses for which public parks would be required. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Public Services. a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for other public services? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-80.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in a need for expansions to other public services. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 59 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 60 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X
b. Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Recreation. a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-81.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the proposed project would not increase the use or demand for park or recreational facilities because the Project does not include the development of uses that would place demands on these facilities, such as residential dwellings or office employment. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Recreation. b. Would the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-81.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the proposed project does not include recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 61 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relative components of the circulation system, including intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
X
b. Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated
roads or highways?
X
c. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
X
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
X
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
X
Transportation/Traffic. a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including, but not limited to, intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-83.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that during construction of the Project facilities there would be a slight increase in traffic as a result of construction vehicles and equipment; however, said increase will be less than significant and short-term. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Transportation/Traffic. b. Would the project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

January 2017 P a g e | 62 Environmental Engineering
Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-83 and 3-84.) July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways. However, during the installation of the project facilities, it might be necessary to temporarily close lanes on the affected streets. In such instances, the contractor would be required to comply with the provisions of Part 6, Temporary Traffic Control, of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices and the California Supplement to minimize any traffic and pedestrian hazards that exist during Program construction.

Therefore, the impacts would be considered less than significant and no further mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Transportation/Traffic. c. Would the project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-84.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded thatiImplementation of the Project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Transportation/Traffic. d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Answer: No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-84.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not substantially increase other hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 63 Environmental Engineering
Transportation/Traffic. e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Answer: No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-84.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Transportation/Traffic. f. Would the project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Answer: No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-84.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 64 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is:
1) Listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k), or
X
2) A resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resources to a
California Native American tribe.

X
Tribal Cultural Resources. a.(1). Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources, or on a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code §5020.1(k), Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-53)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that during the AB 52 process, the Pechanga Cultural Resources personnel indicated that there might be tribal cultural resources located in the vicinity of the Corona Ranch Reclaimed Water Reservoir and its associated pipeline. The Pechanga Cultural Resources personnel also indicated that this was the only area of concern regarding the Project. Strict adherence to the above mitigation measures would reduce any impacts to these potential resources to a level of less than significant.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: There are no tribal cultural resources within the project area. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Tribal Cultural Resources. a.(2). Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American Tribe, and that is a resource determined by a lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code §5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code § 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resources to a California Native American tribe.

Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

January 2017 P a g e | 65 Environmental Engineering
Response (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-53 and 3-54):

July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that during the AB 52 process, the Pechanga Cultural Resources personnel indicated that there might be tribal cultural resources located in the vicinity of the Corona Ranch Reclaimed Water Reservoir and its associated pipeline. The Pechanga Cultural Resources personnel also indicated that this was the only area of concern regarding the Project. Strict adherence to the above mitigation measures would reduce any impacts to these potential resources to a level of less than significant.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: There are no tribal cultural resources within the project area. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed projects change that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 66 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
c. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
X
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
X
e. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing communities?
X
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
X
Utilities and Service Systems. a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-86.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project facilities would not require wastewater service. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Utilities and Service Systems. b. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-86.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project facilities would not require water or wastewater service. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

January 2017 P a g e | 67 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Utilities and Service Systems. c. Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-86.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion –No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that implementation of the Project would not result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Utilities and Service Systems. d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-86.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that water needed during Project construction is available from DWP’s existing water and recycled water supplies. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Utilities and Service Systems. e. Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project area that it has adequate capacity to serve the projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing communities? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 68 Environmental Engineering
Utilities and Service Systems. f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion: Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-86.) July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that during construction of the required facilities, construction debris (e.g., excavated soil, and building materials) would be generated. The excavated soil could be utilized as fill material and the amount of other construction debris would be minimal. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact on Riverside County’s ability to handle the solid waste. Therefore, no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Utilities and Service Systems. g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-87.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the Project would comply with all federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 69 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
X
b. Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) X
c. Have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Would the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-88.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that compliance with the mitigation measures included in Sections 3.4 through 3.19 above will ensure that implementation of the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Compliance with the mitigation measures included in July 2016 IS&MND will ensure that implementation of the proposed Project does not have the potential to significantly degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. For these reasons, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 70 Environmental Engineering
Mandatory Findings of Significance. b. Would the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Compliance with the mitigation measures included in the July 2016 IS&MND will ensure that implementation of the proposed Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. For these reasons, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Mandatory Findings of Significance. c. Would the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-89.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that compliance with the mitigation measures included in Sections 3.4 through 3.19 above will ensure that implementation of the proposed Project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. DWP is not aware of any other projects in the area that could result in cumulative construction impacts.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Compliance with the mitigation measures included in the July 2016 IS&MND will ensure that implementation of the proposed Project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. For these reasons, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

January 2017 P a g e | 71 Environmental Engineering
Albert A. Webb Associates. Addendum No. 1 to the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement, Riverside-Corona Feeder Project for the Realignment of Reach G, Realignment of a Portion of Reach F, and the Change in Equipment for the Sterling Pump Station. Western Municipal Water District. Undated.

Association of Environmental Professionals. 2016 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Statutes and Guidelines.

K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc., 2016. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System. City of Corona Department of Water and Power. July.

K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc., 2016. Habitat Assessment, Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution Facilities, Phase 1.

Prepared for the City of Corona Department of Water and Power. April.

Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2016. Cultural Resources Technical Report for the Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution Facilities, Phase 1, City of Corona, Riverside County, California. Prepared for K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc., April 5. 8 EXHIBIT “B”
ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO MND
(SEE ATTACHED SEVENTY-NINE (79) PAGES)
Prepared for:

Department of Water and Power
City of Corona
755 Public Safety Way
Corona, California 92880
Prepared by:

K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

Environmental Engineering
45375 Vista Del Mar
Temecula, California 92590-4314
(951) 699-2082
Cell: (949) 412-2634
[email protected]
February 2018
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 i Environmental Engineering
Page
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description in the July 2016 IS&MND ........................................................................................ 1 Proposed Project Changes ................................................................................................................... 10 Basis for Preparation of an Addendum ...................................................................................................... 12 Initial Study – Supplemental Environmental Checklist Form .............................................................. 16 New Significant Environmental Effects or Substantially More Severe Significant Environmental Effects Compared to those Identified in the Previous CEQA Document ............................................................... 20 Determination ............................................................................................................................................. 21 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ......................................................................................................... 22 Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................................. 24 Agricultural and Forest Resources ....................................................................................................... 26 Air Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 29 Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................ 34 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................... 38 Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................. 42 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................................... 46 Hydrology and Water Quality ................................................................................................................ 50 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................................... 55 Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................................ 57 Noise ..................................................................................................................................................... 58 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................................ 61 Public Services ..................................................................................................................................... 63 Recreation ............................................................................................................................................. 66 Transportation/Traffic ............................................................................................................................ 67 Tribal Cultural Resources ..................................................................................................................... 70 Utilities and Service Systems ................................................................................................................ 72 Mandatory Findings of Significance ...................................................................................................... 75 References ................................................................................................................................................. 77 Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 1 Environmental Engineering
The July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System (State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005) was approved by the Corona City Council on September 7, 2016. On September 12, 2016, the City of Corona filed a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside and on October 13, 2016, it filed a Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse.

Subsequently, on January 31, 2017, the City submitted the Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System (State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005) to the State Clearinghouse for circulation to State agencies in accordance with the State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Financial Assistance’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund Environmental Review Requirements. That Addendum focused on upsizing the WRCRWA Reclaimed Water Pipeline from 16-inch diameter to 20-inch diameter. On that same day, the State Clearinghouse circulated the document to the following State agencies for a 15-day review period which ended on February 14, 2017:
❖ Resources Agency
❖ Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 6
❖ Department of Parks and Recreation
❖ Department of Water Resources
❖ Caltrans, District 8
❖ State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Drinking Water ❖ State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Financial Assistance ❖ State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Rights ❖ Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 8
❖ Native American Heritage Commission
❖ Public Utilities Commission
The only response to the Addendum was from the State Clearinghouse. In his February 15, 2017 letter to Keith S. Dunbar, Scott Morgan, Director, State Clearinghouse stated:

The State Clearinghouse submitted the above-named Addendum to selected state agencies for review. The review period ended on February 14, 2017, and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.

The following Project Description was contained in the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System.

The City of Corona Department of Water and Power (DWP) anticipates the implementation of its Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution Facilities (Project). The Project will include two 2.14 million-gallon storage tanks and sixteen separate pipelines with a total length of approximately Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 2 Environmental Engineering
74,300 lineal feet. These facilities would be located within the Cities of Corona, Eastvale and Norco. Due to local funding constraints, DWP intends to implement the Project in phases as shown in Table 2.1-1.

Table 2.1-1
Proposition 1 – Recycled Water Distribution Facilities
Project Description Length (feet) Size Unit Cost Estimated Cost Phase 1
WRCRWA Line from Plant to Bluff Street 5,000 16 inches $500 $2,500,000 Phase 1 Subtotal $2,500,000
Phase 2
Old Temescal between Fullerton and I-15 4,600 8 inches $400 $1,800,000 Lincoln Avenue from Railroad to SR 91 2,500 8 inches $400 $1,000,000 River Road from Corydon to Lincoln 7,800 8 inches $400 $3,120,000 California Industrial Complex 4,300 8 inches $400 $1,720,000 Phase 2 Subtotal $7,640,000
Phase 3
Main Street Storage Tank 2.14 mg lump sum $6,000,000
Main Street Tank Fill Line 3,300 16 inches $500 $1,650,000 Corona Ranch Storage Tank 2.14 mg lump sum $6,000,000
Corona Ranch Tank Fill Line 14,000 16 inches $500 $7,000,000 Phase 3 Subtotal $20,650,000
Phase 4
Chase Park 1,400 8 inches $400 $560,000
Promenade Avenue from McKinley to SR 91 5,800 12 inches $450 $2,610,000 Tehachapi Park 1,500 6 inches $250 $375,000
Cresta Verde Park 1,700 6 inches $250 $425,000
Main and Ontario 5,500 8 inches $400 $2,200,000
Fullerton Avenue 9,100 8 inches $400 $3,640,000
Sierra - Bella to Serfas Club 2,500 12 inches $450 $1,125,000 Phase 4 Subtotals $10,935,000
Phase 5
Chase Drive – Foothill to 4 Kings 1,900 8 inches $400 $760,000 Mountain Gate Drive 3,400 8 inches $400 $1,360,000
Phase 5 Subtotals $2,120,000
Total Estimated Project Cost $43,845,000
These facilities are briefly described in the following paragraphs.

Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 3 Environmental Engineering
As shown on Figure 2.1-1, the Phase 1 Facilities would include a 5,000- foot long, 16-inch diameter pipeline within the River Road easement from the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority’s facilities at 14634 River Road in the City of Eastvale to its intersection with Bluff Street in the City of Norco. At the Santa Ana River crossing, the pipeline would be installed within a dedicated space in the River Road Bridge.

The Phase 2 Facilities would include four separate reclaimed water pipelines: Old Temescal Road, Lincoln Avenue, River Road, and California Industrial Complex.

Figure 1.1-2 Old Temescal Road
Figure 2.1-1 WRCRWA Line Plant to Bluff Street
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 4 Environmental Engineering
The Lincoln Avenue Reclaimed Water Pipeline would include approximately 2,500 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipeline. As shown on Figure 2.1-3, the pipeline would follow the Lincoln Avenue right-of-way between the eastbound onramp to Highway 91 and Railroad Street.

The River Road Recycled Water Pipeline would include approximately 7,800 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipeline. As shown on Figure 2.1- 4, the alignment would follow the River Road right-of-way between Corydon StreCaet and Lincoln Avenue. This pipeline would also include a short stub to serve the Fairview Park and another southerly along Lincoln Avenue.

The California Industrial Complex Reclaimed Water Pipeline would include approximately 4,300 lineal feet of 8-inch diameter pipeline.

As shown on Figure 2.1-5, the alignment would follow California Street from Old Temescal Road to Rimpau Street.

Figure 2.1-4 River Road
Figure 2.1-3 Lincoln Avenue
Figure 2.1-5 California Industrial Complex
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 5 Environmental Engineering
The Phase 3 Facilities would include the two 2.14 million-gallon storage tanks and their associated fill lines. As shown on Figure 2.1-6 the South Main Reclaimed Water Reservoir would be constructed on a parcel near the intersection of South Main Street and Cleveland. The 16-inch diameter fill line would extend along the South Main Street right-of-way from Upper Street to the tank site, a distance of approximately 3,300 lineal feet. The reinforced concrete tank would be buried. It would be 110 feet in diameter and 30 feet in depth.

The Phase 4 Facilities would include seven separate reclaimed water pipelines: Chase Park, Promenade Avenue, Tehachapi Park, Cresta Verde Park, Main and Ontario, Fullerton Avenue, and Sierra Bella.

Figure 2.1-6 South Main Reclaimed Water Reservoir
Figure 2.1-7 Corona Ranch Reclaimed Water Tank
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 6 Environmental Engineering
As shown on Figure 2.1-8, the 8-inch diameter Chase Park Reclaimed Water Pipeline would extend a total distance of 1,400 lineal feet. The alignment would extend north along California Street to its intersection with Chase Road and thence along Chase Road in a northwesterly direction to Chase Park.

As shown on Figure 2.1-9, the 12-inch diameter Promenade Reclaimed Water Pipeline would extend a total of approximately 5,800 lineal feet.

The alignment would follow Promenade Avenue from its intersection with McKinley Avenue to approximately State Route 91.

Figure 2.1-9 Promenade Avenue
Figure 2.1-8 Chase Park
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 7 Environmental Engineering
As shown on Figure 2.1-10, the 6-inch diameter Tehachapi Park Reclaimed Water Line would extend a total of 1,500 lineal feet. The alignment would follow Saddleback from its intersection with McKinley to its intersection with Saint Helena and thence along Saint Helena to Tehachapi Park.

As shown on Figure 2.1-12, the 8-inch diameter Main and Ontario Reclaimed Water Line extends a total distance of about 5,500 lineal feet.

The alignment follows South Main Street in a northerly direction from its intersection with Citrus Avenue to its intersection with East Ontario Avenue. It then follows East Ontario Avenue in a westerly direction to its intersection with Taylor Avenue. It then follows Taylor Avenue northerly to the Vicentia Elementary School.
\
Figure 2.1-12 Main and Ontario
Figure 2.1-11 Cresta Verde Park
Figure 2.1-10 Tehachapi Park
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 8 Environmental Engineering
As shown on Figure 2.1-13, the 8-inch diameter Fullerton Avenue Reclaimed Water Pipeline would extend a total distance of about 9,100 lineal feet. It would follow Fullerton Avenue in a northerly direction from Centenial High School to its intersection with East Grand Avenue. It would then follow East Grand Avenue in a northerly direction to the City Park. A short section would also be installed in the Magnolia Avenue right-of-way at its intersection with Fullerton Avenue.

Figure 2.1-13 Fullerton Avenue
Figure 2.1-14 Sierra Bella to Serfas Club
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 9 Environmental Engineering
The Phase 5 Facilities would include two 8-inch diameter reclaimed water pipelines: Chase Drive – Foothill to 4 Kings and Mountain Gate Drive. As shown on Figure 2.1-15, the Chase Drive Reclaimed Water Pipeline alignment would follow Elysia from about its intersection with Overland to its intersection with 4 Kings. It would then follow 4 Kings to its intersection with Chase Drive. This pipeline would be approximately 1,900 feet in length.

The WRCRWA Reclaimed Water Pipeline alignment proposed at the time of publication of the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration is shown on the aerial on Figure 1.

Figure 2.1-15 Chase Drive
Figure 2.1-16 Mountain Gate Drive
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 10 Environmental Engineering
Figure 1 July 2016 Preferred Alignment of the WRCRWA Reclaimed Water Pipeline The proposed project changes analyzed in this Addendum also focus on the WRCRWA Recycled Water Pipeline (Phase 1). During final design, it was determined that the original alignment for the WRCRWA Recycled Water Pipeline as it exited the WRCRWA Wastewater Treatment Facility was not feasible due to utility conflicts within the treatment facility. To eliminate those conflicts, the preferred alignment was changed to that shown on Figure 2. Also during final design, DWP was able to designate a laydown area to accommodate the construction project. That laydown area is shown on Figure 3.

February 2018 P a g e | 11 Environmental Engineering
Figure 2 Preferred Alignment WRCRWA Reclaimed Water Pipeline Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 12 Environmental Engineering
Figure 3 Proposed Laydown Area
No other changes in the Project are anticipated at this time; therefore, this Addendum focuses on the alignment change of the Phase 1 Project and the laydown area.

The California Supreme Court stated: “The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act to be interpreted in such a manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” [Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of the University of California (1988)].

February 2018 P a g e | 13 Environmental Engineering
2) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported in whole or in part through public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. 3) An activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies.
b) Project does not include:
1) Proposals for legislation to be enacted by the State Legislature. 2) Continuing administrative or maintenance activities, such as purchases for supplies, personnel-related actions, general policy and procedure making (except as they are applied to specific instances covered above).
3) The submittal of proposals to a vote of the people of the state or of a particular community that does not involve a public agency sponsored initiative [Stein v. City of Santa Monica (1980) 110 Cal. App. 3d 458; Friends of Sierra Madre v. City of Sierra Madre (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 165]. 4) The creation of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
5) Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
c) The term “project” refers to the activity which is being approved and which may be subject to several discretionary approvals by governmental agencies. The term “project” does not mean each separate governmental approval.
d) Where the Lead Agency could describe the project as either the adoption of a particular regulation under subdivision (a)(1) or as a development proposal which will be subject to several governmental approvals under subdivisions (a)(2) or (a)(3), the Lead Agency shall describe the project as a development proposal for the purpose of the environmental analysis. This approach will implement the Lead Agency principle as described in Article 4.
§15164(b) of the 2018 State CEQA Guidelines states that the Lead Agency may prepare an addendum to a previously adopted negative declaration if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the conditions described in §15162 calling for a subsequent EIR or negative declaration have occurred. §15162 of the 2018 State CEQA Guidelines states:

February 2018 P a g e | 14 Environmental Engineering
A. When an EIR has been certified or a negative declaration adopted for a project, no subsequent EIR shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
1) Substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous EIR or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or
3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified as complete or the Negative Declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:

E. If changes to a project or its circumstances occur or new information becomes available after adoption of a negative declaration, the lead agency shall prepare a subsequent EIR if required under subdivision a). Otherwise the lead agency shall determine whether to prepare a subsequent negative declaration, an addendum, or no further documentation.

F. Once a project has been approved, the lead agency’s role in project approval is completed, unless further discretionary approval on that project is required. Information appearing after an approval does not require reopening of that approval. If after the project is approved, any of the conditions described in subdivision a) occurs, a subsequent EIR or negative declaration shall only be prepared by the public Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 15 Environmental Engineering
agency which grants the next discretionary approval for the project, if any. In this situation no other responsible agency shall grant an approval for the project until the subsequent EIR has been certified or subsequent negative declaration adopted.

February 2018 P a g e | 16 Environmental Engineering

FOR USE WHEN THE CITY OF CORONA IS REVIEWING SUBSEQUENT ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS

PURUSANT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED OR ADOPTED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

1. Project Title: Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System, Phase 1

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

Department of Water and Power
City of Corona
755 Public Safety Way
Corona, California 92880

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Keith S. Dunbar, P.E., BCEE, Hon.D.WRE., F. ASCE
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.
45375 Vista Del Mar
Temecula, California 92590-4314
(951) 699-2082
Cell: (949) 412-2634
Email: [email protected]

4. Project Location:

Within a 20-foot wide easement granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers across federal lands from the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant in the City of Eastvale to Baron Drive, a distance of approximately 2,000 lineal feet and thence in public street rights-of-way to the intersection of River Road and Bluff Street in the City of Norco, a distance of approximately 3,000 lineal feet. Riverside County Section 10, Township 3 South, Range 7 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian 33°35’24” N, -117°35’51” W (River Road Bridge).

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Department of Water and Power
City of Corona
755 Public Safety Way
Corona, California 92880
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 17 Environmental Engineering

6. General Plan Designation:

Federal lands administered by the Corps of Engineers: Conservation, City of Eastvale Proposed Laydown Area: Residential Agriculture (RA), City of Norco Pipeline Alignments in Public Rights-of-Way: Not Applicable

7. Zoning:

Federal lands administered by the Corps of Engineers: Heavy Agriculture, 10-acre minimum, City of Eastvale Proposed Laydown Area: Agriculture, Low Density (A-1-20), 20,000 square-foot minimum lot size, City of Norco Pipeline Alignments in Public Rights-of-Way: Not Applicable

8. Incorporation by Reference: Consistent with §15150 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the following documents were used in the preparation of this proposed Addendum and incorporated by reference:
❖ K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc., 2016. Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System (State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005) prepared for City of Corona Department of Water and Power. July.
❖ K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc., 2017. Addendum to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System (State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005) prepared for City of Corona Department of Water and Power. January.
❖ K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc., 2016. Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution Facilities, Phase 1 prepared for City of Corona Department of Water and Power. May. ❖ K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc., 2017. Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution Facilities, Phase 1 prepared for City of Corona Department of Water and Power. July. ❖ Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2016. Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution Facilities, Phase 1, Riverside County, California prepared for K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc. April 5. ❖ Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2017. Addendum to the Proposition 1 Reclaimed Water Distribution System Project Cultural Resources Assessment, Riverside County, California. Prepared for K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc. October 23.

9. Previous Environmental Document: (Please describe the previously adopted ND or MND or the previously certified EIR including the date the document was adopted or certified, the date the project was approved by the City of Corona, the date the NOD was filed with the County of Riverside, and a summary of potentially significant effects identified in the CEQA document.) The July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluated the environmental effects of the proposed Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System. That document was approved by the City of Corona’s City Council on September 7, 2007. The City filed a Notice of Determination with the County of Riverside on September 12, 2016 and with the State Clearinghouse on October 13, 2016. All potential impacts identified in the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration can be mitigated to a less than significant level by implementation of the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program that was also adopted by the City Council on September 7, 2016.

February 2018 P a g e | 18 Environmental Engineering
Addendum No. 1 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration focused on the impacts of upsizing the proposed reclaimed water pipeline from 16-inches in diameter to 20-inches in diameter. No additional impacts were disclosed due to the upsizing. That document was circulated through the State Clearinghouse from January 31, 2017 through February 14, 2017. No State agencies submitted comments on the document.

During final design, the City of Corona’s Department of Water and Power determined that the installation of the pipeline through the WRCRWA Wastewater Treatment Plant property was not feasible due to the many conflicts with the existing infrastructure on the plant property. Therefore, it decided that the best alternative would be to cross federal lands, administered by the Corps, between the treatment plant property and Baron Drive. The July 2016 proposed alignment as well as the now proposed alignment and other encumbrances across federal lands are shown on Figure 4.

Figure 4 Alternative Alignments
Also, during final design, DWP was able to identify the location of the proposed laydown area.

These changes were not foreseen at the time of preparation of the July 2016 IS&MND and would have no effect on the discretionary approval process.

February 2018 P a g e | 19 Environmental Engineering

12. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings.) The proposed WRCRWA Recycled Water Line would be located within an easement across federal lands granted by the Corps of Engineers and thence within public street rights-of-way of Baron Drive and River Road. The surrounding land uses include public service (treatment plant site), park lands, residential and open space.

13. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
❖ U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
➢ Easement
❖ U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
➢ Financing Approval
❖ State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Financial Assistance ➢ Financing Approval
❖ California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region ➢ General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities. ➢ General Permit for Construction Dewatering
❖ City of Eastvale
➢ Encroachment Permit
❖ City of Norco
➢ Encroachment Permit
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 20 Environmental Engineering
The subject areas checked below were determined to be new significant environmental effects or to be previously identified effects that have a substantial increase in severity either due to a change in project, change in circumstances or new information of substantial importance, as indicated by the checklist and discussion on the following pages:

Aesthetics Agricultural/Forest Resources Air Quality & Greenhouse Gases Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils
Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing
Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic
Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 21 Environmental Engineering
(To be completed by the Lead Agency):

On the basis on this initial evaluation:

I find that substantial changes are proposed in the project or there are substantial changes in the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken that will require major revisions to the previous environmental document due to the involvement of significant new environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. Or, there is “new information of substantial importance”, as that term is used in the State CEQA Guidelines §15162(a)(3). However, only minor changes or additions or changes would be necessary to make the previously certified EIR adequate for the project in the changed situation. Therefore, a SUPPLEMENTAL EIR is required.

Department of Water and Power
February 6, 2018
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 22 Environmental Engineering
1) A finding of “No New Impact/No Impact” means that the potential impact was fully analyzed and/or mitigated in the prior CEQA document and no new or different impacts will result from the proposed activity. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No New Impact/No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parenthesis following each question. A “No New Impact/No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No New Impact/No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2) A finding of “New Mitigation is Required” means that the project may have a potentially significant impact on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously approved ND or MND or certified EIR and that new mitigation is required to address the impact.
3) A finding of “New Potentially Significant Impact” means that the project may have a new potentially significant impact on the environment or a substantially more severe impact than analyzed in the previously approved ND or MND or certified EIR that cannot be mitigated to a below a level of significance or be avoided. 4) A finding of “Reduced Impact” means that a previously infeasible mitigation measure is now available, or a previously infeasible alternative is now available that will reduce a significant impact identified in the previously prepared environmental document.
5) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as projectlevel, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 6) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. §15163(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analyses Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the following checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the proposed action. c) Infeasible Mitigation Measures. Discuss any mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible that would in fact now be feasible or that are considerably different from those previously analyzed and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the project, but the project proponents decline to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives.

February 2018 P a g e | 23 Environmental Engineering
d) Changes in Circumstances. Discuss any changes in the project, changes in circumstances under which the project is undertaken and/or “new information of substantial importance” that cause a change in conclusion regarding one or more effects discussed in the original document.
7) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 8) Supporting Information Sources. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
9) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 10) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; b) the difference between the proposed activity and the previously approved project described in the approved ND or MND or certified EIR; and
c) the previously approved mitigation measures identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significant. 11) Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Note: Conducting consultation early in the CEQA process allows tribal governments, lead agencies, and project proponents to discuss the level of environmental review, identify and address potential adverse impacts to tribal cultural resources, and reduce the potential for delay and conflict in the environmental review process. (See Public Resources Code section 21083.3.2.) Information may also be available from the California Native American Heritage Commission’s Sacred Lands File per Public Resources Code section 5097.96 and the California Historical Resources Information System administered by the California Office of Historic Preservation. Please also note that Public Resources Code section 21082.3(c) contains provisions specific to confidentiality.

February 2018 P a g e | 24 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
X
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? X
d. Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? X
Aesthetics. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Aesthetics. b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway.

Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-14)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that all pipeline work would be conducted within public street rights-of-way. Once the underground pipelines were installed, they would not be visible and therefore not impact any views.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Unlike the alignment described in the July 2016 IS&MND, the section between the WRCRWA Treatment Plant and Baron Drive (2,000 lineal feet) would be within an easement granted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Once construction is completed, the existing conditions described above with respect to the pipeline would still apply. The proposed laydown area would be located on a parcel that the City of Corona has previously utilized as a lay down area. Once construction is finished, the laydown area would be restored to its existing condition. For these Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 25 Environmental Engineering
reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Aesthetics. c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-14.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that Installation of the underground facilities would not degrade the visual character or quality of the sites and their surroundings. Consequently, no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Aesthetics. d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

February 2018 P a g e | 26 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board.

Consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Propose Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The proposed alignment would cross federal lands administered by the Corps and thence public street rights-of-way. The federal lands are utilized for park purposes. The laydown area is presently vacant land in the City of Norco. It is presently shown in the General Plan as RA, residential agricultural. The use of this lot as a lay down would be temporary and have no long-term impacts to agricultural uses. The existing conditions described above still apply to that portion of the pipeline within the public street rights-of-way for Baron Drive and River Road. For these reasons, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

February 2018 P a g e | 27 Environmental Engineering
Agricultural and Forest Resources. b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-17)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the pipelines would be installed within public street rights-of-way which are not applicable to zoning. Therefore, implementation of the Project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. Consequently, there are no impacts anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: : The proposed alignment would cross federal lands administered by the Corps and thence public street rights-of-way. The federal lands are utilized for park purposes. The laydown area is presently vacant land in the City of Norco. It is presently zoned A-1-20, low density agricultural, minimum lot size 20,000 square feet. The use of this lot as a lay down would be temporary and have no long-term impacts to agricultural uses. The existing conditions described above still apply to that portion of the pipeline within the public street rights-of-way for Baron Drive and River Road. For these reasons, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Agricultural and Forest Resources. d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

February 2018 P a g e | 28 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Implementation of the Project would not result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use as there are no forest lands within the Project area. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Agricultural and Forest Resources. e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-17 and 3-18).

July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that Implementation of the project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

February 2018 P a g e | 29 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.

July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that a project is deemed inconsistent with air quality plans if it would result in population and/or employment growth that exceeds growth estimates included in applicable air quality management plans [i.e., SCAQMD’s 2012 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP)]. The AQMP is based on general plans from local jurisdictions, which includes the City of Corona’s General Plan. The AQMP accounts for development that would occur as a result of implementation of the local general plans. The purpose of the Project is to:
❖ Decrease the amount of recycled water that cannot be beneficially used within the service area of the Western Riverside County Regional Wastewater Authority (WRCRWA) of which the City of Corona is a member agency. ❖ Increase the amount of recycled water that can be beneficially used thereby decreasing the amount of potable water that is currently being used for non-potable uses.
❖ Decrease the amount of imports from the State Water Project and Colorado River Aqueduct.

February 2018 P a g e | 30 Environmental Engineering
❖ Improve the reliability of landscape irrigation water supplies.

It would not accommodate growth and therefore is consistent with the AQMP. Consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Air Quality. b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

However, the ARB has designated the SCAB as non-attainment for the State ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 standards. In addition, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated the SCAB as non-attainment for the federal ozone, PM10 and PM2.5 standards. Therefore, every effort should be made to minimize emissions within the SCAB. Consequently, to reduce the emissions as much as possible, DWP will:
❖ Appoint a construction relations officer to act as a community liaison concerning on-site construction activities including resolution of issues related to PM10 generation.
❖ In addition, DWP will add the following best management practices in its contract documents for this project:

The contractor shall:

February 2018 P a g e | 31 Environmental Engineering
❖ Utilize electricity from power poles instead of from temporary diesel or gasoline power generators, when feasible.
❖ Require the use of 2010 and newer diesel haul trucks (e.g., material delivery trucks and soil import/export) and if the lead agency determines that 2010 model year or newer diesel trucks cannot be obtained the contractor shall use trucks that meet EPA 2007 model year NOx emissions requirements. ❖ Require that all on-site construction equipment meet EPA Tier 3 or higher emissions standards according to the following:
✓ All off-road diesel-powered construction equipment greater than 50 hp shall meet the Tier 4 emission standards, where available. In addition, all construction equipment shall be outfitted with BACT devices certified by CARB. Any emissions control device used by the contractor shall achieve emissions reductions that are no less than what could be achieved by a Level 3 diesel emissions control strategy for a similarly sized engine as defined by CARB regulations. ✓ A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification, BACT documentation, and CARB or SCAQMD operating permit shall be provided at the time of mobilization of each applicable unit of equipment. ❖ Maintain construction equipment engines by keeping them properly tuned and maintained according to manufacturer’s specifications.
❖ Use alternative fuels or clean and low-sulfur fuel for equipment. ❖ Idle trucks in accordance with the Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ACTM) to Limit Diesel Fueled Commercial Motor Vehicle Idling and other applicable laws. ❖ Spread soil binders on site, where appropriate, unpaved roads and staging areas. ❖ Water site and equipment as necessary to control dust. ❖ Sweep all streets at least once per day using SCAQMD Rule 1186 certified street sweepers or roadway washing trucks if visible soil materials are carried to adjacent streets. ❖ Conduct operations in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements. ❖ If necessary, wash off trucks leaving the site.
❖ Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-32)
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 32 Environmental Engineering
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that the California Air Resources Board has designated the South Coast Air Basin as non-attainment for the State ozone standard, the State PM10 standard and the State PM2.5 standard. In addition, the Federal Environmental Protection Agency has designated the South Coast Air Basin as nonattainment for the federal ozone standard, the federal carbon monoxide standard, and the federal PM10 standard. The proposed project would generate emissions during the construction phase; however, as shown above, these emissions are considered less than significant by the South Coast Air Quality Management District’s threshold criteria. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Air Quality. d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Air Quality. e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p 3-32))
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 33 Environmental Engineering
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that SCAQMD has suggested significance levels of 10,000 MT per year CO2 equivalents for industrial projects. Based on the information presented above, the total annual CO2 emissions from construction of the all phases of the Proposition 1- Reclaimed Water Distribution System would be much less than the significance levels. Therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions from construction would be considered less than significant and no mitigation is required.

Therefore, no mitigation is required.

February 2018 P a g e | 34 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
X
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X
d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X
f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat
conservation plan?
X
Biological Resources. a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-40 and 3-41).

However, in order to comply with the conservation goals of the MSCHP and to ensure burrowing owl and nesting birds remain absent from the Project sites, DWP shall implement the following:

February 2018 P a g e | 35 Environmental Engineering
❖ A burrowing owl clearance survey shall be conducted prior to any ground disturbing activities in accordance with the CDFW 2012 Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Two pre-construction clearance surveys shall be conducted 14- 30 days and 24 hours prior to ground disturbing activities to document the continued absence of burrowing owl from the Project site.
❖ If ground-disturbing activities or removal of any trees, shrubs, or any other potential nesting habitat are scheduled within the avian nesting season (nesting season generally extends from February 1 - August 31), a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds should be conducted within 10 days prior to any ground disturbing activities. The biologist conducting the clearance survey should document a negative survey with a brief letter report indicating that no impacts to active bird nests will occur. If an active avian nest is discovered during the 10-day preconstruction clearance survey, construction activities should stay outside of a 300-foot buffer around the active nest. For raptor species, this buffer is expanded to 500 feet. It is recommended that a biological monitor be present to delineate the boundaries of the buffer area and to monitor the active nest to ensure that nesting behavior is not adversely affected by the construction activity.

Once the young have fledged, normal construction activities can occur.

Response: (Source: May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis p. 10) July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSCHP Consistency Analysis concluded that based on the proposed design plans and the limits of disturbance from Project activities, and with the implementation of a preconstruction nesting bird clearance survey, none of the special-status species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site will be directly or indirectly impacted from implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, this Project will have “no effect” on federal, State, or MSHCP listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, the Project will have “no effect” on designated Critical Habitats.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

This was verified by the July 2017 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution Facilities, Phase 1 prepared for City of Corona Department of Water and Power by K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Biological Resources. c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact
Response: (Source: May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis p. 10) May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis Conclusion – No Impact: The May 2016 Habitat Assessment and MSCHP Consistency Analysis concluded that based on the proposed design plans and the limits of disturbance from Project activities, and with the implementation of a pre-construction nesting bird clearance survey, none of the special-status Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 36 Environmental Engineering
species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site will be directly or indirectly impacted from implementation of the proposed Project. Therefore, this Project will have “no effect” on federally, State, or MSHCP listed species known to occur in the general vicinity of the Project site. Additionally, the Project will have “no effect” on designated Critical Habitats.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

February 2018 P a g e | 37 Environmental Engineering
Biological Resources. f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND. .

February 2018 P a g e | 38 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? X
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource as defined in §15064.5? X
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? X
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? X
e. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code §21074 as either:

X
Cultural Resources. a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: April 2016 Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum, pp. 3 & 4) April 2016 Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum Conclusion – No Impact: The April 2016 Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum concluded that several previous studies have investigated portions of the APE and adjacent areas (RI-00061, RI01697, RI-01954, RI-04331, RI-05964, RI-07500). These studies have provided coverage for the entire APE. The results of the EIC records search conducted for this study failed to identify any previously recorded cultural resource within the project APE. Two previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within 0.5-mile of the APE. These resources are located outside of the APE and will not be impacted by the current project.

Based on the level of disturbance of the APE from previous infrastructure development (e.g., roads, pipelines), it is unlikely that any previously unidentified cultural resources will be affected or impacted by the current project. Therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources under CEQA and no historic properties affected under the NHPA. To maintain these findings, the following mitigation measures are recommended for the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and/ or human remains are discussed below. [Note: The recommended mitigation measures were included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project.]
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 39 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply. This was confirmed in Rincon Consultants, Inc., October 23, 2017. Addendum to the Proposition 1 Reclaimed Water Distribution System Project Cultural Resources Assessment, Riverside County, California. Prepared for K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

As part of its responsibilities under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers consulted with the State Historic Preservation Officer on this project. In her December 1, 2017 letter to Edward T. De Mesa – Chief, Planning Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District, Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer stated:

Rincon Consultants, Inc., (Rincon) conducted a records search and a pedestrian survey of the COE’s APE on July 12, 2017.

The larger pipeline project (formerly the Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System Project, now the WRCRWA Recycled Water Pipeline Project) is being partially funded by the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau). Reclamation separately consulted on the larger undertaking and made a finding of no adverse effect to historic properties. I concurred with Reclamation’s finding in a letter dated August 15, 2017 (BUR_2017_0717_001). None of the cultural resources identified by Reclamation within the larger Proposition 1 APE are located within the COE’s present APE for Phase 1.

The COE requested a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) which was negative.

The COE sent request for comment letters to Native American contacts provided by the NAHC on July 16, 2017. The COE contacted the tribes again on September 20, 2017. At Mr. Ontiveros’ request, the COE will require that an archaeologist periodically monitor the project during construction. The COE will also follow the provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGRPA) if human remains are discovered on federal land.

The COE has concluded that granting an easement for the proposed project will result in no historic properties affected. I do not object to this finding pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1).

For these reasons, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Cultural Resources. b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource as defined in §15064.5? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Based on the level of disturbance of the APE from previous infrastructure development (e.g., roads, pipelines), it is unlikely that any previously unidentified cultural resources will be affected or impacted by the current project. Therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources under CEQA and no historic properties affected under the NHPA. To maintain these findings, the following mitigation measures are recommended for the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and/ or human remains are discussed below. [Note: The recommended mitigation measures were included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project.]
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 40 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Based on Rincon Consultants, Inc.’s October 23, 2017 Addendum to the Proposition 1 Reclaimed Water Distribution System Project Cultural Resources Assessment, Riverside County, California. Prepared for K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc., the existing conditions described above still apply. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Cultural Resources. c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Mitigation Measures:
❖ Should construction/development activities uncover paleontological resources, work will be moved to other parts of the Project site and a qualified paleontologist shall determine the significance of these resources. If the find is determined to be significant, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented. Appropriate measures would include that a qualified paleontologist be permitted to recover and evaluate the find(s) in accordance with current standards and guidelines.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Cultural Resources. d. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: April 2016 Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum, pp. 3 & 4) April 2016 Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum Conclusion – No Impact: The April 2016 Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum concluded that several previous studies have investigated portions of the APE and adjacent areas (RI-00061, RI01697, RI-01954, RI-04331, RI-05964, RI-07500). These studies have provided coverage for the entire APE. The results of the EIC records search conducted for this study failed to identify any previously recorded cultural resource within the project APE. Two previously recorded cultural resources have been identified within 0.5-mile of the APE. These resources are located outside of the APE and will not be impacted by the current project.

Based on the level of disturbance of the APE from previous infrastructure development (e.g., roads, pipelines), it is unlikely that any previously unidentified cultural resources will be affected or impacted by the current project. Therefore, Rincon recommends a finding of no impact to historical resources under CEQA and no historic properties affected under the NHPA. To maintain these findings, the following mitigation measures are recommended for the unanticipated discovery of cultural resources and/ or human remains are discussed below. [Note: The recommended mitigation measures were included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for this project.]
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 41 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: Based on Rincon Consultants, Inc.’s October 23, 2017 Addendum to the Proposition 1 Reclaimed Water Distribution System Project Cultural Resources Assessment, Riverside County, California. Prepared for K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc., the existing conditions described above still apply. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

February 2018 P a g e | 42 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

2. Strong seismic ground shaking? X

3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X

Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Therefore, no further analysis or mitigation is required.

February 2018 P a g e | 43 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p.3-58.)
Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 44 Environmental Engineering
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded the Project sites are located on relatively flat topography and are not subject to landslides. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the Project would impact landslides nor does the Project have the potential to create or generate landslides. Therefore, no further analysis or mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The existing conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Geology and Soils. b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, p. 3-58.)
July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that installation of the proposed facilities would require grading which would result in the potential for wind and water erosion. However, compliance with the mitigation measures included in the air quality section to control fugitive dust would also control the potential for soil erosion or the loss of top soil (See Air Quality. b.). These include:
❖ Spread soil binders on site, where appropriate, unpaved roads and staging areas. ❖ Water site and equipment as necessary to control dust. ❖ Conduct operations in accordance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated and no further mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

February 2018 P a g e | 45 Environmental Engineering
Geology and Soils. d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

February 2018 P a g e | 46 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
X
b. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably upset accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
X
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X
e. Be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, and if so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X
f. Be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and if so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? X h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce these potential impacts to a less-than-significant level:

February 2018 P a g e | 47 Environmental Engineering
Mitigation Measures:

To reduce potentially hazardous conditions and minimize the impacts from the handling of potentially hazardous materials, DWP shall include the following in its construction contract documents:
❖ The contractor(s) shall prepare a Health and Safety Plan in compliance with the requirements of Chapter 6.95, Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code (§§ 25500—25532). The plan shall include measures to be taken in the event of an accidental spill.
❖ The contractor(s) shall enforce strict on-site handling rules to keep construction and maintenance materials out of receiving waters and storm drains. In addition, the contractor(s) shall store all reserve fuel supplies only within the confines of designated construction staging areas, refuel equipment only within the designated construction staging areas, and regularly inspect all construction equipment for leaks. ❖ The construction staging area shall be designed to contain contaminants such as oil, grease, and fuel products so that they do not drain towards receiving waters or storm drain inlets.

February 2018 P a g e | 48 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: There are no schools within one-quarter mile of the WRCRWA Recycled Water Pipeline. For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-64 and 3-65.) July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – No Impact: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that several standard environmental record services are available to determine the potential for recognized environmental conditions in an area. Those databases include:
❖ National Priorities List (NPL)
❖ Envirostor
❖ Geotracker
❖ Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) ❖ Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
❖ Hazardous Materials Response Plans and Inventory
❖ Leaking Underground Storage Tank Information System (LUSTIS) ❖ Site Mitigation Program Property Database (formerly CalSites) ❖ Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List (Cortese)
❖ Solid Waste Information System (SWIS)
These databases were searched for the presence of hazardous materials sites within the Project area. According to those databases, there are six active cleanup sites in the Project area. All work would be conducted on public street rights-of-way or at the proposed tank sites which are far removed from the cleanup sites; therefore, these sites should not affect the work areas.

Consequently, no impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

February 2018 P a g e | 49 Environmental Engineering
Hazards and Hazardous Materials. f. Would the project be within the vicinity of a private airstrip, and if so, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

February 2018 P a g e | 50 Environmental Engineering
New
Potentially
Significant
Impact
New Mitigation
Is Required
No New
Impact/No
Impact
Reduced
Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X
b. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
X
c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
X
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? X
e. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? X
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X
g. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? X
i. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
X
j. Be Inundated by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X
Hydrology and Water Quality. a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Answer: No New Impact/No Impact.

Response: (Source: July 2016 IS&MND, pp. 3-67 and 3-68.) July 2016 IS&MND Conclusion – Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated: The July 2016 IS&MND concluded that during site grading and excavation activities associated with the construction of the Project facilities, bare soil would be exposed to wind and water erosion. If precautions are not taken to contain sediments, construction activities could produce sediment laden storm runoff. In addition to increased erosion potential, hazardous materials associated with construction equipment could Addendum No. 2 to the July 2016 Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Proposition 1 – Reclaimed Water Distribution System
(State Clearinghouse No. 2016071005)
City of Corona Department of Water and Power
K.S. Dunbar & Associates, Inc.

February 2018 P a g e | 51 Environmental Engineering
adversely affect water quality if spilled or stored improperly. (See Section 3.11 for a full discussion and mitigation measures associated with hazardous materials.) The following mitigation measures would reduce these potential impacts to a level of less than significant.

Mitigation Measures:

DWP shall require contractors to implement a program of best management practices (BMP’s) and best available technologies to reduce potential impacts to water quality that may result from construction activities. To reduce or eliminate construction-related water quality impacts before the onset of construction activities, DWP would obtain coverage under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permits. Construction activities would comply with the conditions of these permits that include preparation of storm water pollution prevention plans, implementation of BMP’s, and monitoring to insure impacts to water quality are minimized. As part of this process, multiple BMP’s should be implemented to provide effective erosion and sediment control. These BMP’s should be selected to achieve maximum sediment removal and represent the best available technology that is economically achievable. BMP’s to be implemented as part of this mitigation measure may include, but not be limited to, the following:
❖ Temporary erosion control measures such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other groundcover shall be employed for disturbed areas.
❖ Storm drain inlets on the site and in downstream offsite areas shall be protected from sediment with the use of BMP’s acceptable to DWP, local jurisdictions and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. ❖ Dirt and debris shall be swept from paved streets in the construction zone on a regular basis, particularly before predicted rainfall events.
❖ No disturbed surfaces shall be left without erosion control measures in place between October 15 and April 15. DWP shall file a Notice of Intent with the Regional Board and require the preparation of a pollution prevention plan prior to commencement of construction. DWP shall routinely inspect the construction site to verify that the BMP’s specified in the pollution prevention plan are properly installed and maintained. DWP shall immediately notify the contractor if there were a noncompliance issue and require immediate compliance.

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would insure that the impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.

February 2018 P a g e | 52 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.

For this reason, there would be no new impacts, changes, or new information associated with the proposed project changes that would require preparation of a Supplemental or Subsequent EIR or MND.

February 2018 P a g e | 53 Environmental Engineering
Discussion of the Proposed Project Changes – No New Impact/No Impact: The on-site conditions described above still apply.